BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 14:25

Username Protected wrote:

I was trying to relate it to something you would be familar with. Your area of expertise has products going to market that bomb. The people sending them to market believe they will be successful. Might not be a good analogy depends on your line of work. No offense intended.

I'm not agreeing with your analogy.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:20

Username Protected wrote:

300KTAS is what they're claiming. Doesn't get much more specific than that

So what altitude, fuel flow, temperature, weight was that at?

What are cruise speeds outside that one specific point?

How much time, fuel, distance did it take to climb?

How much time, fuel distance did it take to descend?

This is why a draft AFM performance section would be enlightening. One cruise number doesn't define an airplane's usefulness, particularly for turbine airplanes where low altitude effects are dramatic and need to be accounted for.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:22

Like I've said before in this thread. I don't really care to speculate. I'm fine waiting. But I don't think they'd still be pushing forward to release it if it sucked.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:49

Username Protected wrote:

But I don't think they'd still be pushing forward to release it if it sucked.

They've already said it sucks, that was a stated goal from the beginning, and I don't think they will miss it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:55

Username Protected wrote:

But I don't think they'd still be pushing forward to release it if it sucked.

They've already said it sucks, that was a stated goal from the beginning, and I don't think they will miss it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:57

I think the stated goal is to sell airplanes and make money.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 15:59

Suck to you may not be suck to others. You have to compare to what's available on the market to the "owner operator". None have a chute. To tell people you "have a jet" is a huge deal too.

My friend has a brand new SR22. It's gorgeous. His wife calls it "jiggy jiggy" because that's the sound it makes when you turn it on. He's the guy that's gonna buy a Cirrus jet. If it does 220 on under 50GPH, looks and sounds like a jet and has a parachute it's gonna crush the market.

You don't see all the factors at play here.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 17:03

Username Protected wrote:

Suck to you may not be suck to others. You have to compare to what's available on the market to the "owner operator". None have a chute. To tell people you "have a jet" is a huge deal too.

My friend has a brand new SR22. It's gorgeous. His wife calls it "jiggy jiggy" because that's the sound it makes when you turn it on. He's the guy that's gonna buy a Cirrus jet. If it does 220 on under 50GPH, looks and sounds like a jet and has a parachute it's gonna crush the market.

You don't see all the factors at play here.

Agreed. You say "Chute" people listen.

Your typical passenger is terrified in an airplane because they think if the engine quits it falls out of the sky. But then, if you are able to say, "If the engine quits we have a safety chute," that fear subsides. It's the difference between people agreeing to fly or not fly. Also, it's not skill based, it's just pull the chute. Rich people are going to gobble these things up. Every spouse is going to tell their pilot spouse, spend the extra money and get the airplane with the chute. A couple of "chute saves" in the jet and it will be game, set match.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 17:09

Username Protected wrote:

But I don't think they'd still be pushing forward to release it if it sucked.

They've already said it sucks, that was a stated goal from the beginning, and I don't think they will miss it.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 17:11

Marketing department only needs a video of the wifey copilot pulling the handle while her husband is faking a stroke.

"Have your steak, and eat it too."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 17:46

Username Protected wrote:

Marketing department only needs a video of the wifey copilot pulling the handle while her husband is faking a stroke.

"Have your steak, and eat it too."

I'd go ahead and pay somebody to crash it in the water on the way down to the Bahamas and have a chase plane with a GoPro. My wife and I have been watching the "House of Cards" series on Netflix, so I am learning how the world works. :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 17:52

There is an idea...use the plane in a summer blockbuster and film a real pull/save after taking a missle strike from a villian (in an MU2).

Bond survives (and joins the mile high on the way down) and Cirrus goes viral.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 18:08

Brilliant idea for a Cirrus product placement in an upcoming Bond movie... pull,pull,pull,pull,pull says Mr. bond to Miss ??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:17

Username Protected wrote:

Suck to you may not be suck to others. You have to compare to what's available on the market to the "owner operator". None have a chute. To tell people you "have a jet" is a huge deal too.

My friend has a brand new SR22. It's gorgeous. His wife calls it "jiggy jiggy" because that's the sound it makes when you turn it on. He's the guy that's gonna buy a Cirrus jet. If it does 220 on under 50GPH, looks and sounds like a jet and has a parachute it's gonna crush the market.

You don't see all the factors at play here.

I think the insurance companies will see all the factors at play.
Running it out of gas
Over gross and iced up
VFR into ifr
much of which will be due to over reliance on a chute

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Apr 2015, 19:21

So? They'll still insure it

Cirrus SF50